Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Francis Veterinary Center

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis Veterinary Center

[edit]
Saint Francis Veterinary Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP; promotional. The majority of the article pertains to the grand opening of a new department that is being endorsed by a celebrity. All the press is on that one event, mostly speaking to the celebrity's involvement and not so much on the practice itself. All of it is from Metro Philadelphia, excepting the Yahoo ref, which is a reposting of a press release and not independent. I doubt anyone would assert that a veterinarian is going to be notable without the celebrity tie-in. It is promotional due to the severe name dropping on "prominent" people in attendance at the grand opening and the depth of coverage given the one-day event. It is a vet clinic, not a stage for celebs to perform on; where is the notable content on the vet clinic? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, the accepted version is not that wildly different from the rejected ones, this was rejected at AFC numerous times. Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article went through what was probably a higher than usual number of revisions at AfC primarily because I wasn't very familiar with wikipedia rules, so my inexperience was doing a disservice to the content. I didn't initially write the article, but worked to trim and hone it down while learning wikipedia on the fly, ultimately getting it to main space. But the end product is dramatically different form the first drafts of it, and the deficiencies in the process were due to my inexperience, which I hope won't hurt the entry going forward. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. article achieves depth of coverage, as articles make clear the celebrity is not merely endorsing a service, but rather had a concept in mind to apply human medicine to pets at a level he, a professional athlete' receives in his career. That is unusual and notable. And so now this player owns a hospital and is employing this celebrity's vision for medicine. It's not the same as an athlete endorsement a sandwich shop or something - this celebrity had a vision in mind to apply human medicine to pets, and made that vision a reality. Notable.
  2. article discusses a topic that achieved regional attention in the nation's #4 media market of Philadelphia, a media market surpassed only by New York, Los Angeles and Chicago - all of which would be considered 'regional' for wikipedia. Delaware Valley suggests a population reach of more than 6 million people - more than 32 states in the nation. Mrpresident80 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Additionally, the article is now even further improved after edits from the wp community.
  4. The commentary in the deletion nomination is inaccurate and misleading, providing the wrong context within which to consider this subject. The subject of the article is not a 'vet clinic' which connotes a small, limited medical facility. Rather, the subject of the article is a specialty hospital that provides advanced medical services, which is supported in the article by the AAHA accreditation information regarding Board Certified specialists, specialty medical disciplines, and news articles outlining the technologies in the rehab center.
  5. The commentary in the deletion nomination minimizes or trivializes the 'celebrity endorsement', even though in this case it seems this is not a standard celebrity 'endorsement'. Instead you have a professional athlete who we can presume experiences state of the art rehabilitative medicine as a condition of his job, building a medical service for animals based on the premise that he wants to apply human medical technologies and techniques to animal rehabilitation. That seems notable.
  6. The commentary in the deletion nomination says there is not enough 'notable content on the vet clinic', even though the article and sourcing clearly outline technologies used that are notable, and accreditation in specialty departments which is notable in terms of describing the notability of the hospital itself.
  7. The commentary in the deletion nomination describes the celebrity's involvement as an 'endorsement' when the celebrity is in fact an owner or profit-share according to publicly available news stories. It seems notable that a celebrity would not merely endorse but actually own an animal hospital or division or clinic of an animal hospital. In fact, it may be notable in that it may be only one of it's kind in this regard.
  8. Wikipedia hosts an article in main space about the American Animal Hospital Association, presumably because the organization and its purpose are 'notable' under wikipedia standards. If AAHA is notable, and it's purpose is notable, then if AAHA declares a specialty hospital as advanced then you have one 'notable' organization (in wikipedia standards) saying another organization is notable, and there is substantive weight to that.
  9. The article seems quite notable given that this animal hospital seeks to apply human standards of medicine and medical technology to animals, which the sources validate especially relative to the Rollins Center.
  10. A United States Senator saying this hospital is 'outstanding and innovative' and going to the length of giving it a Certificate of Special Senate Recognition seems quite 'notable' indeed and validates the hospital overall as a notable subject for wp. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The subject of the article is the Vet Centre and it doesn't meet WP:CORP. A famous baseball player opened a department within the centre, and this received some local media. There is no evidence to support the centre, which is the subject of the article, being anything out of the ordinary apart from Rollins' involvement, and the article subject can not inherit notability from his involvement. 6 of the 7 sources cited relate to Rollins being involved, the other merely confirms the centre holds accreditation. The sources cited would almost certainly not exist if Rollins wasn't involved and don't constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. Similarly, the unreferenced claims relating to a Senator do not transfer notability from the senator to the centre. The fact that the article passed AfC is of no consequence. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Considerations/Context to Strong Delete from Flat Out (numbered comments to follow by Mrpresident80 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  1. To your comment that "A famous baseball player opened a department" - that is in and of itself quite notable.
  2. To your comment that the article subject "received some local media" - the word 'some' in that context may mislead a bit in that it diminishes the amount of press the subject received, as sourced in the article.
  3. To your comment that 6 of 7 sources related to Rollins, I am not aware of any particular ratio of source-to-notability that wikipedia requires.
  4. To your comment that one source "merely" confirms accreditation - a bit of a Catch-22 here. Language was removed earlier as 'promotional' that specifically outlined notability on this point, indicating that fewer than 1% of 27,000 animal hospitals in the US and Canada achieve this particular accreditation in even one discipline, let alone multiple divisions as is the case with the subject of the article. Arguably notable, especially if multiple accredited departments is increasingly difficult and unusual. Perhaps it should be added back in to provide context. Regardless, probably not proper context to describe a level of distinction that 1% of animal hospitals achieves as 'merely...accredited', statistically speaking the top 1% of anything is never 'mere' anything, it's substantial and notable.
  5. To your comment that the Senator's claims don't transfer notability from the Senator to the Center, I have amended that section based on available public information in which the Senator praised the hospital AND the Rollins Center in his presentation of the Certificate. Mrpresident80 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. To your comment that the article subject 'received some local media" - I'm not sure the country's 4th largest media market counts as merely 'some' and 'local'. Philadelphia isn't a small town in the middle of no where, it's a mega media market, meaning the article subject received significant regional attention.
  7. To your comment that 'no evidence to support the centre is anything out of the ordinary' - The article offers two citations to communicate notability: 1. A United States Senator issued a Senate Recognition saying the hospital is "outstanding and innovative" which we should see as substantial and notable; and 2. the Hospital Association that is cited in the article has accredited departments as 'specialty'.
  8. To inherit notability position, Rollins department is part and parcel of the hospital, it IS the hospital and vice versa. Logically, they are one and the same in much the same way that a surgery department or cardiology department are part and parcel of an overall hospital. Medical departments cumulatively make up any hospital; departments don't exist on their own outside or apart from a hospital, veterinary or human. Therefore if one is notable per wp, then so is the other.
  9. To the 'what if Rollins wasn't involved' line of thought - I don't know how this is relevant? He IS involved, and that IS notable. The hospital is notable because its capabilities attracted someone like Rollins, and because they could make Rollins' vision of applying human rehab advancements to animals; and Rollins involvement is notable for reasons discussed herein.
  10. The written reason for nomination for deletion notes two things worth addressing: 1. the article seems to talk about the celebrity endorsement but not 2. the department itself. To the former, the celebrity endorsement is essential to the purpose of the department - a professional athlete wanted to take the type of medical care he received as a professional baseball player and provide that to animals. Therefore, it is not just a typical celebrity-endorses-a-product relationship, but rather the celebrity's participation DEFINES the medicine offered and one of the articles explains that well, taht they wanted to take human rehab medicine and provide it to pets. And to the latter, the article does describe notable therapies the department offers like laser, hydro, neurostimulation, etc. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a debate, you don't need to "reply" Flat Out let's discuss it 09:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and respect the process here. Much depends on how this discussion is framed - one could say 'some local coverage' or one could say 'coverage in the nation's 4th largest media market'. Or one could say 'this is only a vet clinic' or one could say 'this is a specialty animal hospital that has drawn notice from some of the nation's politicians and celebrities' - the article does source and support the latter in each example, but by using the toned down language of the former in each example, the context created might not be fair to the actual information and sourcing in the article. So my comments here are just meant to provide some additional context. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Despite some of the promotional tone, the article does make credible claims of notability regarding the breadth and scope of its clinical offerings. I'm not sure how many celebrity animal hospitals exist and the addition of sources describing the rarity of clinics providing the extensive range of services provided at this center would further establish notability. The torturous history of this article in AfC demonstrates that a substantial collaborative effort has been made to shape an article that would meet Wikipedia standards and I hope that we could give the article a further opportunity to develop. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have read each of the references provided and apart from the COO of the centre claiming it is the most advanced centre in the country, there is no evidence that this is the case. What is the benchmark for animal rehab services that that this particular clinic exceeds? Note that the celebrity put his pet through an existing rehab service and that it made a big difference, then helped play a part in opening this one. I can say that the company I work for provides the most advanced home and community care services in the southern hemisphere, that doesn't make it so. Also, with due respect to the hardworking reviewers at AfC I don't believe that because an article was accepted through the AfC process, that it should lend weight here. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off point, but I also wonder why we also have Johari & Jimmy Rollins Center for Animal Rehabilitation and if WP:COI is an issue given a previous speedy for deletion on material copied from the Saint Francis website. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAlthough I didn't create the article I did contribute quite a bit to it, and was involved in that speedy delete - note here: the speedy delete wasn't for using material copied from the website, it was (I have to admit) because it was my first contributions to an article ever on wikipedia and i definitely was not understanding the advice and guidance the editors were giving me. I was using descriptive language that I didn't realize was inappropriate (such as 'advanced' and 'one of a kind' and other unnecessary editorial-type language) in the beginning, which kept flagging it. Finally, I used the live chat feature and worked with those editors (they were awesome!) to get it more in line after I better understood why those words weren't ok. I made an effort to work with the editor who did the speedy delete to understand it all better, and he was kind enough to remove it and work with me to help me understnd. But it was NOT because language was removed from a website, it was my fault for not understanding all the rules. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And regarding Johari & Jimmy Rollins Center for Animal Rehabilitation I added that sort of feeling like I was on a wikipedia 'roll' thinking it was a good standalone article BEFORE you guys took issue with Saint Francis. I'm more interested in the Saint Francis article because this topic fascinates me and I hope other readers. If the individual story on Johari & Jimmy Rollins Center for Animal Rehabilitation was deleted to preserve Saint Francis that would be ok with me if it follows all the rules better. (Personal note, I'm enjoying this process and feel storngly about the veterinary industry, and want to share that info if possible) Mrpresident80 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a frequenter of Saint Francis Veterinary Center, I have seen the cutting edge treatments and technologies that they incorporate. The fact that they were named 2nd best practice in all of North America by the AAHA goes a long way in my book. It's not a popularity contest, but rather a testament to the good work they do and how much they attempt to stay ahead of the curve. The rehabilitation center as well -- whether or not the Rollins' name is on it, it's the most advanced treatment for our pets. I don't see this as chest-thumping or advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTMTech (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note JTMTech registered account just to leave this comment. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE None of this is really relevant to the article itself. The article stands on its own, sourced properly, meeting primary criteria, with or without fans of the hospital or clients of the hospital or anyone else leaving their personal thoughts here. As written, the article stands on its own without need for off-target puffery (a word I've recently learned as part of my wikipedia evolution) Mrpresident80 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. What I don't see, which is necessary for notability, is independent reliable sources and sources that are at the regional level. Moreover, the notability much be about the Veterinary Center and not who promoted its opening.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article makes no mention about anyone 'promoting' an 'opening' - the article discusses a hospital that has many departments, one of which is co-owned by a celebrity who had a unique idea for a particular area of veterinary medicine and was able to apply that vision in reality. This has nothing to do with promotion, and I am struggling to understand how to make that more clear. The notability is that a celebrity DESIGNED AND OWNS IT, and that medicine is being practiced according to HOW THE CELEBRITY DESIGNED IT. This is not a simple concept of a celebrity endorsing a product and walking away, or showing up once just to promote an opening. Mrpresident80 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rollins' ownership doesn't bring notability to the subject of the article. Do you have a conflict of interest that you haven't declared? Flat Out let's discuss it 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No I don't. But my point of view on this is perhaps not being communicated clearly enough. Notability here, to me, is not that someone 'endorsed' or even necessarily 'owns' a hospital, it's that someone very unusual -a professional athlete - designed a medical center for animals based on the kind of healthcare he gets as a baseball player. To me this has zero to do with a standard endorsement scenario and I do believe editors on this page are looking at this through the wrong lens. The player in the sourced articles says, essentially, 'i have to rehab as a professional athlete and i get a standard of care animals don't. I wanted to change that, so i opened a hospital to do it, to offer human medicine to animals.' That's a paraphrase based on the sourced articles, but to me, the notablility is in the HOW and the WHY this came to be, not in the mere fact that a celeb or notable person endorsed or only owns it. If that makes sense. Mrpresident80 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Joe Bloggs decided there was a case for a different way of doing things, would it (a) receive the same media and (b) be regarded as noteworthy as if a celebrity wasn't involved? Flat Out let's discuss it 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Bloggs works for Princeton Review SAT prep (I assume that's where the reference comes from) so certainly not, there isn't much that gives him substantial expertise or capability, or any coherent angle into physical rehab medicine. However, Joe Bloke is a fake professional football player who has undergone the world's most advanced rehabiliation therapies as a prerequisite of his job and career. He broke a leg, got surgery and rehabbed. Then he tore a ligament, got it fixed, and got rehab. When he got older he got arthritis and went to rehab. He therefore had a very unique insight and expertise and experience with physical rehabilitation. He knew what water therapies and laser and massage and whatever else there is in that field could do. And he had the idea, from his experience, to apply it to animals. So he bought himself a hospital, turned it into a rehab department and then hired doctors to apply medical standards to his vision. And people thought it was interesting because their animals, like the athletes' they root for on tv, suffer the same broken bones, torn muscles and joint problems (and whatever else) and need and they know professional athletes are given teh best care possible to keep them playing, and are therefore interested in what Joe Bloke offers to pets. Sorry for the long hypothetical but a hypothetical answer seemed appropriate for a hypothetical question (and an interesting one). Mrpresident80 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting wikipedia conundrum. There are likely many notable subjects who, by definition of their subject matter, are not often in the news. Veterinary medicine is one of those areas that Wikipeida would under-cover, and therefore never build a substantial body of information. Whereas (for example) scandal-laden celebrities would pass the threshold but add no substantive value. To that end, a celebrity owning, planning, and defining a veterinary hospital should be notable enough for main space. And to the 'news' concept of notability, the one in Florida got pres because it built a new hospital - is that information notable, merely because it's in the news that it built a new building? Moreso than a celebrity building a hospital and defining the medicine within it? Mrpresident80 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you keep harping on the connection with Jimmy Rollins - which appears to be the ONLY thing that gives this clinic even a passing claim to notability - why not simply add the information to the Jimmy Rollins article? Actually, I see that there is already a full section on it at the Rollins article. So in lieu of deletion, it would be possible to redirect this title to Jimmy Rollins#The Rollins Center For Animal Rehabilitation. However, I don't favor that, since the name Saint Francis Veterinary Center is not unique. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing - why not a viable option? I wouldn't know how to do that btw, still a newbie at wikipedia. Mrpresident80 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be the one to do it. The administrator who closes this discussion will decide if it is to be done. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what exists in the subsection of the Rollins article on "Community" is nothing but self-referenced, self-serving pr. Merging this would just be more of the same.Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been trimmed several times in the past 24 hours - by me and by another editor. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saint_Francis_Veterinary_Center&oldid=1138333749"